One of the tactics of cultic groups that I perceived early in
my research (now almost 30 years ago), was their ability and need
to use certain communicative and psychological techniques to
spin negative incidents in such a way as to give
plausible deniability to these incidents. This seemed to be
especially true when it came to the lives and actions of the
leaders of most of these new religions: leaders most often
characterized as prophets and apostles.

I found this strategy very disturbing. This type of
truth-twisting is the stuff of politics, the maneuverings of
proverbial smoke-filled rooms. What does this have to do with
religion and truth? Jesus, the Apostles, and the Prophets never
engaged in this type of semantic subterfuge.

Little did I realize then, the amount of time that I would
spend un-spinning or exposing the carefully crafted
contrivances of the new religious leaders. This has been
especially true of the succession of Prophets, Seers, and
Revelators of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
and many of their followers.

AS THE PROPHET GOES...

In many of my past articles on the LDS church, I have made the
statement, as the Prophet goes, so goes the church.1
What I mean by that statement is that the Prophet, Seer and
Revelator of that body has been invested with such absolute power
pertaining to things spiritual that he and he alone sets the tone
for their church at large during his tenure. As stated by the
late Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie:

The President of the Church is the mouthpiece of God
on earth. Thus saith the Lord: Thou shall give heed
unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto
you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in
all patience and faith. (D. & C. 21:4-5.)2

As the mouthpiece for God, a prophet can be expected to speak
the truth. LDS church doctrine places a great emphasis on being
truthful. The 13th Article of Faith of the LDS church states,
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent,
virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that
we follow the admonition of Paul  We believe all things, we
hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able
to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of
good report or praiseworthy, we seek after all these
things.3

One has only to spend a few moments glancing at the writings
of LDS leaders to glean public pronouncements on the importance
of honesty.

President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First
Presidency of the LDS church, gave these unambiguous statements
in an address given at the Priesthood Session of the 166th
Semiannual General Church Conference:

Brethren, we all should be concerned about the
society in which we live, a society which is like a moral
Armageddon. I am concerned about its effect upon us as the
holders of the priesthood of God. There are so many in the
world who does not seem to know or care about right or wrong.
... We all need to know what it means to be honest.
Honesty is more than not lying. It is truth-telling,
truth-speaking, truth-living, and truth-loving.4

Later in that address, Faust observes:

There are different shades of truth-telling. When we
tell little white lies we become progressively color blind.
It is better to remain silent than to mislead. The degree to
which each of us tells the whole truth and nothing but the
truth depends on our conscience.5

And then at the end of his address Faust quotes present
Prophet of the LDS church, Gordon B. Hinckley:

As President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, Let
the truth be taught by example and precept  that to
steal is evil, that to cheat is wrong, that to lie is a
reproach to anyone who indulges in it.6

In my day-to-day dealings with many Mormon people, I have
found them to be, overall, a clean-living, hard-working,
generally honest lot. But, strangely, when it comes to dealing
with controversial aspects of their belief system, I have
encountered obfuscation, half-truths and even deliberate
mendacity. For a while I relegated this to just being doctrinally
ill-informed. However, as I researched deeper into Mormon
doctrine, I came to see that doctrinal and historical deception
is a legacy that reaches all the way back to the first Prophet,
Seer and Revelator: Joseph Smith himself.

POLISHING THE MYTH

This legacy of deceit in the history and doctrine of the LDS
church is well-known to those who walk in Mormon circles. There
are numerous articles in alternative Mormon
periodicals that deal with the subject of lying for the
Lord. One that strikes to the heart of the matter was
published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.

Frances Lee Menlove, an active Mormon with a Ph.D. in
psychology and a manuscript editor for Dialogue, wrote
The Challenge of Honesty that appeared in the first
issue of Dialogue in spring 1966. The essay calls for
Mormons to, meet openly the challenge of honesty. She
further states that, It is the purpose of this paper to lay
some groundwork for this self-examination.7

Not only does Dr. Menlove issue this challenge to individual
LDS members, but she also speaks to the institutional deception
within the LDS church leadership:

The failure to realize that the Mormon Church in all
its manifestations, both historical and contemporary, is an
intermingling of the human as well as the divine, also puts
some obstacles in the way of honesty with others. In the
first place, we have a proud and courageous history. Every
Primary child knows the story of how our forefathers crossed
the plains and made the desert bloom. Wallace Stegner calls
the Mormon pioneers ...the most systematic, organized,
disciplined, and successful pioneers in our history...
. But the story of Joseph Smith, the early Church, the
hegira across the plains, and the consequent establishment of
Zion is more than just history. It is the story of God
directing His People to a new Dispensation. Perhaps because
the history is so fraught with theological significance, it
has been smoothed and whittled down, a wrinkle removed here
and a sharp edge there. In many ways it has assumed the
character of a myth. That these courageous and inspired
men shared the shortcomings of all men cannot be seriously
doubted. That the Saints were not perfect nor their leaders
without error is evident to anyone who cares to read the
original records of the Church. But the myths and the
myth-making persist. Striking evidence for this is found
in the fact that currently one of the most successful
anti-Mormon proselytizing techniques is merely to bring to
light obscure or suppressed historical documents.
Reading these historical documents arouses a considerable
amount of incredulity, concern, and disenchantment among
Mormons under the spell of this mythological view of history.
That individuals find these bits and pieces of history so
shocking and faith-shattering is at once the meat of
fundamentalistic heresies and an indictment of the
quasi-suppression of historical reality which propagates the
one-sided view of Mormon history. The relevance of this to
honesty is obvious. The net result of mythologizing our
history is that the hard truth is concealed. It is deception
to select only congenial facts or to twist their meaning so
that error becomes wisdom, or to pretend that the Church
exists now and has existed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by
cultural values, passing fashions, and political
ideologies.8

The sentiments expressed above, in 1966, were confirmed in
August 1981 when LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave an address to
the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious
Educators Symposium, in Provo, Utah at Brigham Young
University.

In his talk titled The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than
the Intellect, Packer opines that there are events in LDS
history that should be repressed, because they are not
faith-building:

You seminary teachers and some of you institute and
BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this
school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives
of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the
divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they
will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment
of the Church from its beginning till now.9

Church history can be so interesting and so
inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building
faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be
a faith destroyer.10

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher
of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is
worthy or faith promoting or not.11

Some things that are true are not very useful.12

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing
out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders
destroys faith. A destroyer of faith  particularly one
within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed
specifically to build faith  places himself in great
spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and
unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the
eternities.13

Packer is obviously using his position as a leader of the LDS
church to suppress the publication of any negative or
controversial historical facts about that body. He and the church
hierarchy that he is a member of want LDS history, smoothed
and whittled down, a wrinkle removed here and a sharp edge
there. He wants this mythical view of his churchs
history to be propagated so that existing and potential members
will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every
moment of the Church from its beginning till now. He
clearly is supporting the ongoing legacy of deception.

A mythical view of LDS history is significant because the
architect of the legacy of deception is none other than the very
Prophet of the Restoration: Joseph Smith Jr.

ROOTS OF THE LEGACY

The capstone of the Mormon faith is Joseph Smith Jr. Without
Smith, Mormons believe, the true church could not have been
restored to the Earth. If the fullness of the Gospel had not been
revealed through Smith, mankind would have only an apostate
church to look to for guidance. One LDS scripture, supposedly
revealed from God, states that, Joseph Smith, the Prophet
and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the
salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever
lived in it.14 Further, the God of Mormonism
revealed to his church, concerning Smith, the members were to:

...give heed to all his words and commandments which
he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all
holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from
mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.15

Not only was Joseph the official spokesman for God, but he was
entrusted with the keys of salvation for all men. Bruce McConkie
records:

Joseph Smiths greatness lies in the work that
he did, the spiritual capacity he developed, and the witness
he bore of the Redeemer. Since the keys of salvation were
restored to the Prophet, it is in and through and because of
his latter-day mission that the full redemptive power of the
Lord has again become available to men. It is because the
Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to
mortal men. Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the
Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of
men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
(D. & C. 135:3.)16

The circumstance that contradicts Smith being such an exalted
person unfortunately deals with character. The problem is one of
honesty and, in my opinion, this flaw in Smiths character
is the root of the legacy of deception.

Critics of the LDS church have for years pointed out how
Joseph Smith Jr. and many succeeding prophets had lied to cover
up the practice of polygamy. It has only been recently, however,
that public acknowledgement of these charges have been emanating
from within the LDS church.

D. Michael Quinn, a recently excommunicated, recognized Mormon
historian has supplied both the LDS and the outsider with
penetrating historical insight into early Mormon methodology. In
an essay published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Quinn disclosed the relative nature of truth held by Joseph Smith
and other LDS Prophets:

It is a commonplace saying that the first casualty
when war comes is truth but amid the sectarian warfare
involving Mormon polygamy, truth has often simply been a
negotiable commodity. The illegality, secrecy, and
self-protection of the individual and the institution all
contributed toward the final complication in the history of
polygamy among the Mormons: the meaning and application of
truth. In an 1833 revelation dictated by Joseph
Smith, the Lord said: All truth is independent in that
sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself...
. (D&C 93: 30). None of the official or
semi-official commentaries on Joseph Smiths revelations
has pointed out the strong implication of these words that
truth ultimately is relative, rather than absolute. But
Joseph Smiths own teachings in connection with polygamy
in 1842 explicitly denied that there were ethical absolutes:
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and
often is, right under another. God said, Thou shalt not
kill; at another time He said Thou shalt utterly
destroy. This is the principle on which the government
of heaven is conducted  by revelation adapted to the
circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are
placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is,
although we may not see the reason thereof till long after
the events transpire. Forty years later, Apostle
Abraham H. Cannon gave some instructions about polygamy that
indicated one dimension of this question: It is good to
always tell the truth, but not always to tell the whole of
what we know. If failure of full disclosure were the
only manifestation of relative truth in the history of Mormon
polygamy, the problem would be comparatively simple. But the
situation has been compounded by Mormons giving specialized
meaning to language that has a different (if not opposite)
denotation in conventional usage and by instances of emphatic
statements about historical events or circumstances which can
be verified as contrary to the allegations. In 1886, a
Deseret Evening News editorial presented a particularly
significant argument in favor of a specialized approach to
truth with regard to polygamy, and B.H. Roberts further
popularized the argument in a biography of John Taylor
published in 1892. Stating that the secret practice of
polygamy was the context, both publications argued that if
apostles (and by implication, any Latter day Saints) were
under a divine command or covenant of secrecy which one of
the apostles violated by telling others, that those who
maintained the sacred covenant of secrecy would be justified
in, even obligated to, denouncing the disclosures as
false.17

In this writers opinion, it is this relativistic view of
truth buttressed by an entrenched subjectivism that gives LDS
inner justification to the legacy of deceit.18 An
examination of the facts surrounding Smiths denial of
polygamy smacks of the moral relativism of todays political
spin.

I CAN ONLY FIND ONE

Recounting some of the historical information may seem at
first tedious, but dates are important to establish the pattern
of mendacity.

Whether you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and
actually translated The Book of Mormon, or whether he used
other sources and wrote the book is irrelevant to our topic. The
content of the book as it relates to our topic, however, is very
important.

When The Book of Mormon was written, its position on
the subject of polygamy was clearly negative (see for example,
Jacob 3:5; Mosiah 11:2; and Jacob 2:24). Some time shortly after The
Book of Mormon was published in 1830, Joseph had a change of
attitude regarding plural marriage and started talking about it
to his inner circle.

In the Introduction of the fifth volume of the official LDS History
of the Church, we read:

But the climax in doctrine as in moral daring is
reached in this volume by the Prophet committing to writing
the revelation on the eternity of the marriage covenant, and,
under special circumstances and divine sanction the
rightfulness, of a plurality of wives. As the time at which
this revelation was given has been questioned, and also the
authorship of it, extended consideration is given to both
these matters in the following treatise... . Marriage
Covenant, Including the Plurality of Wives [July 1843], notes
the time at which of the revelation was committed to writing,
not the time at which the principles set forth in the
revelation were first made known to the Prophet. This is
evident from the written revelation itself which discloses
the fact that Joseph Smith was already in the relationship of
plural marriage... .19

By way of introducing the subject, we quote the following from
a communication written by former LDS President Joseph F. Smith
and published in the May 20, 1886, issue of the Deseret News:

The great and glorious principle of plural marriage
was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being
forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of
the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a
very few of his intimate associates.

Even though Smith and some of his intimates knew the
principle at this early date, there was still a
public policy of denial.

Published in the first edition (1833) of the Book of
Commandments (which would later become the Doctrine and
Covenants) was a statement of denial of plural marriage. In
chapter 52, we read:

16 And again, I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth
to marry, is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of
God unto man: 17 Wherefore it is lawful that he should have one
wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this
that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that
it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his
creation before the world was made.20

The point is that this citation was published in the Book
of Commandments in 1833, approximately two years after Smith
first received the Polygamy Revelation in or about
1831. While the LDS church at large may have believed the above
statement (and those in The Book of Mormon), Smith knew
different. He knew, and propagated to his inner circle,
privately, the polygamy revelation, yet allowed the one
wife revelation to be republished in the next edition (Doctrine
& Covenants, 1835). He even allowed a controversial
stronger denial to be included in that edition.

That Smith had received the polygamy revelation as early as
1831, almost all Mormon historians agree. Moreover, there seems
to be ample evidence that Smiths first plural wife was
Fanny Alger. Former Mormon historian Quinn fixes this marriage in
early 1833.21

By 1835, the Mormons had settled in Kirtland, Ohio. Because
Joseph had been receiving new revelations in the intervening
years, it was determined to publish a new edition of the Book
of Commandments. The name change to Doctrine and Covenants
was due to a change in content. Some of the new revelations were
added, some of the old ones were edited and two new
non-revelatory articles were added. The article germane to my
thesis was printed as Section 101 and known as the Article
on Marriage.22

This article denies polygamy in emphatic terms:

4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred
and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been
reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we
declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife;
and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when
either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to
persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her
husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her
husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents;
and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be
baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is
unlawful and unjust. We believe that all persons who exercise
control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from
embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.23

Of the article on marriage, Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth
Prophet of the LDS church said:

3. After this had been accomplished, Elder William
W. Phelps arose and read an article prepared by Oliver
Cowdery, on marriage. This was on vote ordered to be
published also in the volume with the revelations. Then
President Oliver Cowdery arose and read an article, Of
Governments and Laws in General, and this likewise was
ordered by vote to be published with the book of the
revelations. Neither of these articles was a revelation to
the Church. They had not been prepared by the Prophet Joseph
Smith. He knew nothing of them until he returned from
Michigan, and they by the conference had been ordered placed
in the volume. This the Prophet permitted to be done,
although it is extremely doubtful that he would have done so
in regard to the article on marriage had he been present at
the time this was ordered published. It contained matters
which were not given by inspiration but which were not in
conflict with the practice of the Church at that time. The
Church has been criticized by its enemies for removing this
article at a later time when its teachings were discovered to
be in conflict with the revealed word of the Lord. This
criticism was of course based on the false notion that this
article was a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph
Smith.24

The important point of the above being, while Smith was
allowing the original one wife statement of 1833, and
allowing the new article on marriage denying polygamy to be added
in 1835, he was already in a polygamous relationship! This is
classical deception. As will be noted, this quiet deception
shortly evolved into open hypocrisy.

It can be seen in the above quotation by Joseph Fielding
Smith, that the inclusion of the anti-polygamy statement was
sort of against the Prophets wishes. The
rationale for this line of apologetic is that: 1) the article was
not a revelation; 2) Joseph was away on a mission while the vote
to include was taken; 3) by the time that Joseph returned the
inclusion was pretty much a done deal; and 4) once
Joseph learned of the inclusion, he was very much
troubled.25

We learn, however, that the Prophet and his Second Counselor
were only on a short missionary journey. The marriage article
mentioned was submitted to the Mormon General Assembly on August
17, 1835. Smith and Frederick G. Williams returned to Kirtland on
Aug. 23, 1835. This was just six days after the article was voted
on.26

By no stretch of the imagination, could the book have gone to
print in just six days after the vote. Smith would have had
plenty of time to excise the article on marriage had he really
wished to. Remember that Smith had total control over the church.

Removing Smith physically from the location of that General
Assembly doesnt alter the fact that he allowed the
statement to be published in the D&C of 1835 and to
remain unchallenged there for the rest of his life. It
wasnt removed and replaced with the 1843 polygamy
revelation until 1876, 32 years after his murder! This gives rise
to the question that I will repeatedly ask, are these deceptions
the acts of a true prophet of God?

Also of utmost importance is the question of what Smith really
believed at this point. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the
prophet was very much troubled about allowing the
marriage article to be included. Does this mean that he
didnt believe the article to be true? Obviously not, since
he was practicing polygamy at the time. If not true, then why
allow it to be published, why leave it in the book for years, and
most importantly if not true, why allow it to be used by others
to deny the practice? Does the term plausible
deniability resonate with anyone?

Modern-day LDS apologists often accuse Evangelical Christians
of seeing only the black and white of the issue. They invite us
to understand that Smith was given the revelation on polygamy,
but was commanded by God to keep it secret until the time was
right. Even though perfidious church members leaked the practice
(and they were the ones who committed the most heinous sin),
Smith had to keep the secret.

In reality, its not just the rigid
Evangelicals that see the deception of Smith. Several Mormon
scholars have also discerned the legacy of deception. As D.
Michael Quinn observes in his Dialogue article:

The first significant and long lasting manifestation
of this problem in the history of Mormon polygamy occurred in
1835 when an official statement on marriage was included as
Section 101 in the first printing of the Doctrine and
Covenants, a collection of Joseph Smiths revelatory
writings and statements. Verse 4 states, Inasmuch as
this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that
one man should have but one wife; and one woman, but one
husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty
to marry again. In later years several members of the
Church who were prominent in the 1830s would affirm that
prior to the canonization of this statement, Joseph Smith had
already dictated a revelation authorizing plural marriage,
had secretly explained that polygamy would one day become a
practice of the Church, and had himself married his first
plural wife. This article on marriage became the focal
point for a number of polygamy denials during the next
fifteen years.27

The clearest public denial of polygamy made directly by Smith
is gleaned from a much longer address given by Smith to deny
allegations leveled by dissenters in the church.

Because of the differing viewpoints and sometimes imprecise
language on the two sides of the issue, it is necessary to
translate the loaded language to clearly understand
what is being said.

Polygamy advocates believed that Smith had received sanction
from God to take multiple wives. Because of this belief, they did
not see having more than one wife as committing adultery.
Dissidents, on the other hand, saw having any marital relations
other than with ones only wife as adulterous. Hence charges
of adultery were made.

One of the Prophets inner circle, William Law, had
disagreed with some of Smiths doctrine. Chief among these
was polygamy. Law threatened exposure and was excommunicated. He
later became the president of a dissident church, and still
threatened exposure. On May 23, 1844, Law filed a complaint with
the circuit court that Smith was living in open adultery
with Maria Lawrence. Lawrence was Smiths foster
daughter and plural wife.28

It is against these events that Smith brought an address to
the saints on May 26 to answer Laws charges. During the
talk he made two of his most famous assertions. The first is the
boast that he has done a feat that no one, not even Jesus Christ,
has accomplished.

God is in the still small voice. In all these
affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil  all
corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All
hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava!
for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to
boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has
ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days
of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me.
Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast
that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus
ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away
from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I
am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love
to hear the wolves howl!29

The second assertion is the polygamy denial, sprinkled
throughout several paragraphs. For want of space, I quote only
enough to establish the context. I have emphasized the relevant
passages:

Another indictment has been got up against me. It
appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified
against me: the reason is, he is so holy.30

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and
made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported
that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the
truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet (William
Law) has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that
I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a
man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of
this.31

The churchs history volume further states:

William Law testified before forty policemen, and
the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under
oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral
or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he
was my friend, and not the Brutus. There was a
cogitation who was the Brutus. I had not
prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he
was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me,
and he swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the
grand jury would tell me who they are  whether it will
be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools
asking me. A man asked me whether the commandment was
given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new
prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any
fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought
out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.32

The historical record continues:

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was
cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson
Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery.
Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have
been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for
the truths sake. I am innocent of all these charges,
and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me
yourselves. ... Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render
good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own
destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to
bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and
patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph
more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be
accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when
I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent
as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all
perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was
out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother
Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.33

At the time Smith made this denial he had not seven plural
wives, but fourteen documentable ones in addition to Emma!34

It is clear that Joseph and others in the inner circle needed
to play games with words to be able to later deny that they were
denying anything. Here, he seems to be doing it with the words
seven wives. Technically he was right when he said
that he didnt have seven wives," he had
fourteen!

The above is the equivalent semantic game President Clinton
played when he was caught in a lie. When asked by an attorney
during the Paula Jones investigation if he is currently having an
affair, he responded in the negative. Later, when it was proven
that he was having an affair at the time the question was asked,
he was queried by the grand jury as to why he lied. Denying that
he lied, Clinton quipped, It depends on what your
definition of is, is. This type of
prevarication is repugnant enough in a politician; it is even
more abhorrent coming from one who claims to be speaking for God.

It is apparent that while Joseph Smith may have taught
truth-telling by precept, he sadly missed out in instructing by
example. The legacy of deception gives reason for the charge that
the LDS church had/has one persona for public consumption, and an
in house or private persona for the membership elite.
An unmistakably clear example of this duality was provided to us
by Smith himself and was recorded in the journal of one of his
scribes:

October 19, 1843. Thursday.] A.M. at the Temple
Office comparing books and recording deeds. At 11 W[illiam]
Walker came and said President Joseph wanted me to go to
Macedonia. I went immediately to see him and he requested me
to go with him. I went home and got dinner and got ready. He
soon came up and we started out. After we had got on the road
he began to tell me that E[mma] was turned quite friendly and
kind. She had been anointed and he also had been a[nointed]
K[ing]. He said that it was her advice that I should keep
M[argaret] at home and it was also his council. Says he
just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble
about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful
scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I
will baptise you and set you ahead as good as ever.35

So much for the credibility of the Prophet of the Restoration.

All this deception so that Smith could secretly practice what
he felt must be publicly denied. This included public
excommunication that would later be reversed by secret agreement.

Are these actions the legacy of a true Prophet of God? This
and other questions will be considered in a future issue in The
Quarterly Journal.